As seen on Aleteia:
When Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation in February of 2013, he said he would continue to serve the church "through a life dedicated to prayer.” He has made few public appearances since he left office, and has said and written even less.
His relative silence was broken Oct. 21, when his longtime secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, read a 1,800-word speech written by Benedict on the occasion of the dedication of the Aula Magna at the Pontifical Urbaniana University to the Pope Emeritus.The university belongs to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. It dedicated the hall as a “gesture of gratitude” for what Benedict “has done for the Church as a conciliar expert, with his teaching as professor, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and, finally, the Magisterium."
In the speech, the Pope emeritus said that dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures, and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as “lethal to faith.” He also said the true motivation for missionary work is not to increase the Church’s size but to share the joy of knowing Christ.
“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the Church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’"
“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired Pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world."
“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.
Pope Benedict wrote that some religions, particularly “tribal religions,” are “waiting for the encounter with Jesus Christ,” but that this “encounter is always reciprocal. Christ is waiting for their history, their wisdom, their vision of the things.” This encounter can also give new life to Christianity, which has grown tired in its historical heartlands, he wrote.
“We proclaim Jesus Christ not to procure as many members as possible for our community, and still less in order to gain power,” the retired Pope wrote. “We speak of him because we feel the duty to transmit that joy which has been given to us.”
17 October 2014
Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
From LifeSiteNews.com:
In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.
“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.
“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”
While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.
In a candid interview Monday, Cardinal Raymond Burke voiced the concerns of many of his brothers in the Synod hall and lay Catholic activists throughout the world that the public presentation of the Synod has been manipulated by the organizers in the General Secretariat.
He strongly criticized yesterday’s Relatio post disceptationem, or “report after the debate,” which the Catholic lay group Voice of the Family had called a “betrayal,” saying it proposes views that "faithful shepherds ... cannot accept," and betrays an approach that is "not of the Church." He called on Pope Francis to issue a statement defending Catholic teaching.
“In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue,” he told Catholic World Report’s Carl Olsen. “The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.”
“The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church,” he added.
The relatio, he said, proposes views that many Synod fathers “cannot accept,” and that they “as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept.”
The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.
“Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable,” Burke told Olsen.
“The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called ‘revolutionary’, teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.”
Burke lamented that the bishops’ interventions are not published, while the General Secretariat chose to publish the controversial relatio, which was intended as a merely provisional summary of the first week that is under review by the fathers this week.
“All of the information regarding the Synod is controlled by the General Secretariat of the Synod which clearly has favored from the beginning the positions expressed in the Relatio post disceptationem of yesterday morning,” he said.
“While the individual interventions of the Synod Fathers are not published, yesterday’s Relatio, which is merely a discussion document, was published immediately and, I am told, even broadcast live. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see the approach at work, which is certainly not of the Church.”
While critics of Burke's public interventions in the Synod debates have portrayed him as representing a fringe, he was elected by his brother bishops to moderate one of the three English-speaking small groups discussing the relatio this week.
12 October 2014
The Most Pro-Life “Doctor Who” Ever—10 Points You Missed
From CatholicVote.org:
On Saturday October 4 the BBC ran the most boldly pro-life, explicitly anti-abortion TV show in the history of Doctor Who, and maybe in all of modern television.
The show was so skillfully crafted that pro-abortion folks might not know what hit them yet, but they will soon.
Here are the 10 pro-life highlights that you may have missed from this sci-fi gem.
For non-Who fans, I’ll provide a little bit of background along the way. As for spoilers: consider yourself warned! (You can buy the episode for $3 on iTunes or other digital providers.)
1. THE PREGNANT MOON
In case you don’t know, Doctor Who is a Time Lord who seeks adventures throughout time and space. Though an alien, he looks human and travels with a female (usually non-romantic) human companion.
2. LUNAR ULTRASOUND
Guessing at this answer, the Doctor dives into a strange cavern of fluid and comes back with proof. Using his ubiquitous sonic screwdriver, he takes a sonographic image—an ultrasound of the moon.
The picture is rendered in the familiar blue and red tones that all of us and many pregnant women have seen.
It reveals the image of a fetus, albeit one that is several hundred billion tons large and bears huge wings. It is curled into the full interior of the moon, with the surface as its shell.
Four characters are on scene to digest this news: the Doctor, Clara, Courtney, and the female lead astronaut Captain Lundvik. They marvel at the image, but for very different reasons.
3. “UNIQUE AND UTTERLY BEAUTIFUL”
The first reactions are vivid. The Doctor sets the tone.
“Doctor, what is it?” Clara asks. He cannot contain his wonder. “I think it is unique. I think that’s the only one of its kind in the universe. I think that that is utterly beautiful.”
For many years the Doctor has been a hero who is fearless, but not because he has an abundance of courage—instead, because he has wonder. When other people see monsters, he sees the beauty of creation.
That sense of wonder is now turned into the womb of humanity. But human fear is not solved so easily.
4. “HOW DO WE KILL IT?”
Captain Lundvik shatters the feeling of wonder with cold realism. “How do we kill it?”
5. “IT’S A LITTLE BABY!”
Courtney’s youth and compassion assert themselves. “It’s a little baby!” she reacts in horror to Lundvik’s drive towards death.
Clara joins the chorus. “Stop. Right, listen. This is a, this is a life. I mean this, this must be the biggest life in the universe.”
“It is killing people. It is destroying the earth,” Lundvik insists. Her reasons are sympathetic, but still driven too narrowly by fear.
“You cannot blame a baby for kicking,” Clara chimes back.
Lundvik is quick to reach her own dehumanizing conclusions about life in this womb. “It’s an exoparasite. Like a flea, or a head louse.”
“I’m gonna to have to be a lot more certain than that if I’m going to kill a baby” proclaims Clara.
The Doctor’s companions have often been his conscience. He battles his own apprehensions and hatreds. Clara, Amy Pond and others have entreated and even shamed the Doctor into making the right choice—the pro-life choice. Now it’s humanity’s turn.
6. EVERYTHING IS DEATH
Captain Lundvik is not bloodthirsty, but she has fallen into despair. She only sees the destruction that might (but might not) befall if they don’t choose death.
To her, space has not elicited wonder, but dread: “the stars, the blackness, that’s all dead. Sadly that is the only life any of us will ever know.”
Courtney sees more. “There’s life here. There’s life just next door.” But Lundvik cannot hope.
Still, Lundvik is not a villain. She feels trapped. She doesn’t want to abort. “Listen I don’t want to do this. All my life I dreamed about coming here. But this is how it has to end.”
7. GRAPHIC IMAGES
8. THE DOCTOR LEAVES
At this point the sophistication of the writers moves to a new level. The Doctor becomes the emotionally distant boyfriend, and more definitively, the voice of pro-choice empowerment itself.
He leaves. He knows the right decision, but refuses to help the human women make it.
“Whatever future humanity might have depends on the choice that is made right here, right now. Kill it. Or let it live. I can’t make this decision for you.”
Clara pleads with him to stay, to give wisdom—to help them make the right choice. But he gets nasty. “Sorry, well actually I’m not sorry. It’s time to take the stabalizers off your bike.”
Then he postures his abandonment in words that Planned Parenthood could not have written better itself. “It’s your moon, womankind. It’s your choice.”
In “Doctor Who,” the lead actor changes every few years, under the plot conceit that before he dies he can regenerate into a new body. He’s the same person but with a varying personality.
This year’s Doctor is more practically minded, but considerably more insensitive—sometimes intentionally, sometimes absent-mindedly. It is his character flaw along with combating his interior hatreds.
In this episode it was perfectly played into the dismissive posture towards women offered by the pro-choice movement.
9. LIGHTS OUT
With the three girls left to make their abortion decision, Clara patches into mission control and asks all of earth to weigh in during the next hour: “We have a terrible decision to make. We can kill this creature or let it live. We don’t know what’s going to happen when it hatches—if it will hurt us, help us, or just leave us alone. We have to decide together. If you think we should kill the creature turn your lights off. If you think we should take the chance, let it live, leave your lights on. We’ll be able to see. Goodnight earth.”
The earth then chooses: and one country at a time, its lights go off. It makes a massive choice to kill. (An interesting contrast with the moral choice made at the end of “The Dark Knight.”)
But as the timer counts to zero and Lundvik reaches to push the nuclear button, Clara jumps in and turns off the nukes permanently. She knew life was the right choice.
Just in case some people still haven’t figured out the episode was a giant analogy to abortion, the countdown display declares “ABORTED.” Clara aborted the abortion.
The choice made, the Doctor comes back and they transport to earth to watch what happens. The moon hatches into a giant winged creature. Its shell does not rain down on earth to destroy humanity, but disintegrates harmlessly. The creature lays a new egg—a “new moon”—and physics is restored.
We learn that humanity, having seen the beauty of creation that it almost killed, is inspired to reach to the stars again, and eventually populates the universe.
10. PATRONIZING PRO-CHOICE PLATITUDES
The brutal coda to this episode affirms both life and friendship. Clara is furious with the Doctor for leaving instead of helping her.
***
“Kill the Moon” was a thoroughly pro-life story.
Yet it was effective. It did not preach or caricature. The dialogue sizzled. It was riveting, morally serious, and often fun.
While the writers may have felt they were sprinkling in enough “pro-choice” rhetoric to mollify pro-choice elites, that ultimately won’t do. They took that rhetoric and laid it bare as platitudes about women’s choice and empowerment, cheap and patronizing, an abandonment of women.
The moon baby was not a monster, but neither was Lundvik. Her motivations were understandable, and we could relate to all her conclusions. She didn’t want abortion, she just felt she had no choice.
But ultimately Lundvik’s perspective was wrong—despair had narrowed her vision. Life and friendship is the answer.
Finally seeing the wonder of life, Lundvik tells Clara “Thank you. Thank you for stopping me. Thank you for giving me the way back.”
Thank you for stopping abortion.
Not bad for 50 minutes of campy sci-fi.
On Saturday October 4 the BBC ran the most boldly pro-life, explicitly anti-abortion TV show in the history of Doctor Who, and maybe in all of modern television.
The show was so skillfully crafted that pro-abortion folks might not know what hit them yet, but they will soon.
Here are the 10 pro-life highlights that you may have missed from this sci-fi gem.
For non-Who fans, I’ll provide a little bit of background along the way. As for spoilers: consider yourself warned! (You can buy the episode for $3 on iTunes or other digital providers.)
1. THE PREGNANT MOON
In case you don’t know, Doctor Who is a Time Lord who seeks adventures throughout time and space. Though an alien, he looks human and travels with a female (usually non-romantic) human companion.
In this latest episode “Kill the Moon,” the Doctor and companion Clara Oswald land on the moon in 2049 (along with Courtney, a teenage student from the school where Clara teaches).
Serious fluctuations in the moon’s physics are causing death and destruction on earth. Humans have given up space exploration, but they send a few astronauts to investigate–armed with nuclear weapons.
They meet the Doctor and have some scary experiences with deadly spider-like creatures. But by the end of the first act the Doctor discovers the real problem. The moon, which appeared to be growing and breaking apart—turns out to be a giant space egg, ready to hatch. Cue the moral drama.
Serious fluctuations in the moon’s physics are causing death and destruction on earth. Humans have given up space exploration, but they send a few astronauts to investigate–armed with nuclear weapons.
They meet the Doctor and have some scary experiences with deadly spider-like creatures. But by the end of the first act the Doctor discovers the real problem. The moon, which appeared to be growing and breaking apart—turns out to be a giant space egg, ready to hatch. Cue the moral drama.
2. LUNAR ULTRASOUND
Guessing at this answer, the Doctor dives into a strange cavern of fluid and comes back with proof. Using his ubiquitous sonic screwdriver, he takes a sonographic image—an ultrasound of the moon.
The picture is rendered in the familiar blue and red tones that all of us and many pregnant women have seen.
It reveals the image of a fetus, albeit one that is several hundred billion tons large and bears huge wings. It is curled into the full interior of the moon, with the surface as its shell.
Four characters are on scene to digest this news: the Doctor, Clara, Courtney, and the female lead astronaut Captain Lundvik. They marvel at the image, but for very different reasons.
3. “UNIQUE AND UTTERLY BEAUTIFUL”
The first reactions are vivid. The Doctor sets the tone.
“Doctor, what is it?” Clara asks. He cannot contain his wonder. “I think it is unique. I think that’s the only one of its kind in the universe. I think that that is utterly beautiful.”
For many years the Doctor has been a hero who is fearless, but not because he has an abundance of courage—instead, because he has wonder. When other people see monsters, he sees the beauty of creation.
That sense of wonder is now turned into the womb of humanity. But human fear is not solved so easily.
4. “HOW DO WE KILL IT?”
Captain Lundvik shatters the feeling of wonder with cold realism. “How do we kill it?”
The hatching is already causing catastrophe on earth, and maybe when it fully hatches it will destroy the earth entirely. Or maybe it won’t. They aren’t sure.
“Kill the moon?” The Doctor slams Lundvik’s proposal on the table for all of them to look at plainly. He turns off the ultrasound, making the creature disappear while they discuss its fate.
Recent seasons have made the Doctor face situations where he can succumb to his fears and destroy life, or affirm his better nature and trust ways to affirm the inherent value of life, sometimes taking leap of faith.
Even when facing genocide and torture the plotline has favored the life-affirming choice—until now. Would it continue to do so in an abortion analogy?
“Kill the moon?” The Doctor slams Lundvik’s proposal on the table for all of them to look at plainly. He turns off the ultrasound, making the creature disappear while they discuss its fate.
Recent seasons have made the Doctor face situations where he can succumb to his fears and destroy life, or affirm his better nature and trust ways to affirm the inherent value of life, sometimes taking leap of faith.
Even when facing genocide and torture the plotline has favored the life-affirming choice—until now. Would it continue to do so in an abortion analogy?
5. “IT’S A LITTLE BABY!”
Courtney’s youth and compassion assert themselves. “It’s a little baby!” she reacts in horror to Lundvik’s drive towards death.
Clara joins the chorus. “Stop. Right, listen. This is a, this is a life. I mean this, this must be the biggest life in the universe.”
“It is killing people. It is destroying the earth,” Lundvik insists. Her reasons are sympathetic, but still driven too narrowly by fear.
“You cannot blame a baby for kicking,” Clara chimes back.
Lundvik is quick to reach her own dehumanizing conclusions about life in this womb. “It’s an exoparasite. Like a flea, or a head louse.”
“I’m gonna to have to be a lot more certain than that if I’m going to kill a baby” proclaims Clara.
The Doctor’s companions have often been his conscience. He battles his own apprehensions and hatreds. Clara, Amy Pond and others have entreated and even shamed the Doctor into making the right choice—the pro-life choice. Now it’s humanity’s turn.
6. EVERYTHING IS DEATH
Captain Lundvik is not bloodthirsty, but she has fallen into despair. She only sees the destruction that might (but might not) befall if they don’t choose death.
To her, space has not elicited wonder, but dread: “the stars, the blackness, that’s all dead. Sadly that is the only life any of us will ever know.”
Courtney sees more. “There’s life here. There’s life just next door.” But Lundvik cannot hope.
Still, Lundvik is not a villain. She feels trapped. She doesn’t want to abort. “Listen I don’t want to do this. All my life I dreamed about coming here. But this is how it has to end.”
7. GRAPHIC IMAGES
The Doctor lays bare the consequences of Lundvik’s proposal. Sure, killing the moon will stop its hatching, because “there’ll be nothing to make it break up. There’ll be nothing trying to force its way out.”
But euphemisms will not do, either. “The gravity of the little dead baby will pull all the pieces back together again. Of course it won’t be very pretty. You’d have an enormous corpse floating in the sky. Might have some very difficult conversations to have with your kids.”
“I don’t have any kids,” Lundvik says, displaying her deep loneliness.
But euphemisms will not do, either. “The gravity of the little dead baby will pull all the pieces back together again. Of course it won’t be very pretty. You’d have an enormous corpse floating in the sky. Might have some very difficult conversations to have with your kids.”
“I don’t have any kids,” Lundvik says, displaying her deep loneliness.
8. THE DOCTOR LEAVES
At this point the sophistication of the writers moves to a new level. The Doctor becomes the emotionally distant boyfriend, and more definitively, the voice of pro-choice empowerment itself.
He leaves. He knows the right decision, but refuses to help the human women make it.
“Whatever future humanity might have depends on the choice that is made right here, right now. Kill it. Or let it live. I can’t make this decision for you.”
Clara pleads with him to stay, to give wisdom—to help them make the right choice. But he gets nasty. “Sorry, well actually I’m not sorry. It’s time to take the stabalizers off your bike.”
Then he postures his abandonment in words that Planned Parenthood could not have written better itself. “It’s your moon, womankind. It’s your choice.”
In “Doctor Who,” the lead actor changes every few years, under the plot conceit that before he dies he can regenerate into a new body. He’s the same person but with a varying personality.
This year’s Doctor is more practically minded, but considerably more insensitive—sometimes intentionally, sometimes absent-mindedly. It is his character flaw along with combating his interior hatreds.
In this episode it was perfectly played into the dismissive posture towards women offered by the pro-choice movement.
9. LIGHTS OUT
With the three girls left to make their abortion decision, Clara patches into mission control and asks all of earth to weigh in during the next hour: “We have a terrible decision to make. We can kill this creature or let it live. We don’t know what’s going to happen when it hatches—if it will hurt us, help us, or just leave us alone. We have to decide together. If you think we should kill the creature turn your lights off. If you think we should take the chance, let it live, leave your lights on. We’ll be able to see. Goodnight earth.”
The earth then chooses: and one country at a time, its lights go off. It makes a massive choice to kill. (An interesting contrast with the moral choice made at the end of “The Dark Knight.”)
But as the timer counts to zero and Lundvik reaches to push the nuclear button, Clara jumps in and turns off the nukes permanently. She knew life was the right choice.
Just in case some people still haven’t figured out the episode was a giant analogy to abortion, the countdown display declares “ABORTED.” Clara aborted the abortion.
The choice made, the Doctor comes back and they transport to earth to watch what happens. The moon hatches into a giant winged creature. Its shell does not rain down on earth to destroy humanity, but disintegrates harmlessly. The creature lays a new egg—a “new moon”—and physics is restored.
We learn that humanity, having seen the beauty of creation that it almost killed, is inspired to reach to the stars again, and eventually populates the universe.
10. PATRONIZING PRO-CHOICE PLATITUDES
The brutal coda to this episode affirms both life and friendship. Clara is furious with the Doctor for leaving instead of helping her.
Clara begs for a good reason why he left. He can’t be as callous as he seems. But she is wrong. “It wasn’t my decision to make. I told you.”
“You know what, shut up. I am so sick of listening to you,” Clara rages. Leaving “was cheap, it was pathetic, no, no, it was patronizing.”
“No, that was me allowing you to make a choice about your own future,” the Doctor persists in one last attempt to defend pro-choice ideology. “That was me respecting you.”
“My God, really, was it?” Clara yells back as tears well up. “Yeah well, respected is not how I feel.”
“I was helping.”
“What, by clearing off?”
“Yes.”
“Well then clear off,” for good, she says.
Telling these women that abortion was “your choice” was the opposite of friendship.
Nor is this a mere platitude about it not mattering what you choose as long as you choose it. Clara didn’t want the Doctor to stay regardless of the choice she made. Clara wanted him to stay precisely to help her choose life.
“I nearly didn’t press that button. I nearly got it wrong. That was you, my ‘friend,’ making me scared, making me feel like a bloody idiot. You walk our earth, Doctor. You breathe our air. You make us your friends and that is your moon too, and you can damn well help us when we need it.”
“You know what, shut up. I am so sick of listening to you,” Clara rages. Leaving “was cheap, it was pathetic, no, no, it was patronizing.”
“No, that was me allowing you to make a choice about your own future,” the Doctor persists in one last attempt to defend pro-choice ideology. “That was me respecting you.”
“My God, really, was it?” Clara yells back as tears well up. “Yeah well, respected is not how I feel.”
“I was helping.”
“What, by clearing off?”
“Yes.”
“Well then clear off,” for good, she says.
Telling these women that abortion was “your choice” was the opposite of friendship.
Nor is this a mere platitude about it not mattering what you choose as long as you choose it. Clara didn’t want the Doctor to stay regardless of the choice she made. Clara wanted him to stay precisely to help her choose life.
“I nearly didn’t press that button. I nearly got it wrong. That was you, my ‘friend,’ making me scared, making me feel like a bloody idiot. You walk our earth, Doctor. You breathe our air. You make us your friends and that is your moon too, and you can damn well help us when we need it.”
***
“Kill the Moon” was a thoroughly pro-life story.
Yet it was effective. It did not preach or caricature. The dialogue sizzled. It was riveting, morally serious, and often fun.
While the writers may have felt they were sprinkling in enough “pro-choice” rhetoric to mollify pro-choice elites, that ultimately won’t do. They took that rhetoric and laid it bare as platitudes about women’s choice and empowerment, cheap and patronizing, an abandonment of women.
The moon baby was not a monster, but neither was Lundvik. Her motivations were understandable, and we could relate to all her conclusions. She didn’t want abortion, she just felt she had no choice.
But ultimately Lundvik’s perspective was wrong—despair had narrowed her vision. Life and friendship is the answer.
Finally seeing the wonder of life, Lundvik tells Clara “Thank you. Thank you for stopping me. Thank you for giving me the way back.”
Thank you for stopping abortion.
Not bad for 50 minutes of campy sci-fi.
06 October 2014
Cardinal Burke: Synod should take Communion proposal ‘off the table’
As seen in CatholicHerald.co.uk:
The highest ranking American bishop at the Vatican says this month’s Synod of Bishops on the family should mark the end of a high-level debate over whether to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
“The matter really has to be clarified at this point so that this doesn’t continue,” Cardinal Raymond L Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic News Service October 1st. “For this to go on for another year, it can only do harm.”
By church law, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as “brother and sister.”
Pope Francis has said the predicament of such Catholics exemplifies a general need for mercy in the church today. He invited German Cardinal Walter Kasper to address the world’s cardinals at the Vatican in February, when the cardinal argued that, in certain cases, the church can “tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.
The topic is sure to be one of the most discussed at the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary synod on the family, following a lively public debate at the highest levels of the church.
Cardinal Burke is one of five cardinals — three of them of synod fathers — who contributed to a new book of essays arguing against Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.
“I cannot see how (the proposal) can go forward if we are going to honor the words of our Lord himself in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in which he said the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” said Cardinal Burke, who heads the Vatican’s highest court. “The person who’s living in an irregular union is living in an adulterous union and therefore cannot be admitted to the sacraments until that situation has been rectified.”
While he said the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal “can only be a healthy thing as long as there’s an honest and deep exchange of views on the matter,” he said protracted discussion at the highest levels has bred confusion.
“This has gone on now for several months and I see that in the media there’s the expectation that there’s going to be some change in the church’s teaching,” Cardinal Burke said. “I hear from bishops and priests that many people are coming to them and insisting that they can now receive the sacraments because they interpret that somehow the church has already changed her teaching. And that isn’t healthy.”
The October 2014 synod is not supposed to reach definitive conclusions but prepare the agenda for a larger world synod a year later, which will make recommendations to the pope. Yet, Cardinal Burke voiced hopes that church leaders would conclude their debate on the Communion question during the first phase of the process.
“What I would hope would happen at (the 2014 synod) is that this issue be clarified and it be off the table,” he said.
Pope Francis is the “first teacher of the faith,” who is expected to author an apostolic exhortation based on the two synods, but he “wanted to call the presidents of conferences of bishops from around the world to hear their thinking, and if he hears from them that there is no point in further discussion of the matter and it should be taken off the table, that would be a wonderful thing,” the cardinal said.
Cardinal Burke said he could not estimate how many of the nearly 200 bishops attending the synod might be open to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, though he said he saw support in Europe and resistance among bishops in Africa. But he said he could not envision the German cardinal’s recommendation prevailing.
“These are bishops, these are shepherds of the flock, who are Catholic. I can’t imagine them accepting this proposal,” he said. “I don’t know quite how I would be able to digest it.”
The highest ranking American bishop at the Vatican says this month’s Synod of Bishops on the family should mark the end of a high-level debate over whether to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion.
“The matter really has to be clarified at this point so that this doesn’t continue,” Cardinal Raymond L Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, told Catholic News Service October 1st. “For this to go on for another year, it can only do harm.”
By church law, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as “brother and sister.”
Pope Francis has said the predicament of such Catholics exemplifies a general need for mercy in the church today. He invited German Cardinal Walter Kasper to address the world’s cardinals at the Vatican in February, when the cardinal argued that, in certain cases, the church can “tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable”: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.
The topic is sure to be one of the most discussed at the Oct. 5-19 extraordinary synod on the family, following a lively public debate at the highest levels of the church.
Cardinal Burke is one of five cardinals — three of them of synod fathers — who contributed to a new book of essays arguing against Cardinal Kasper’s proposal.
“I cannot see how (the proposal) can go forward if we are going to honor the words of our Lord himself in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, in which he said the man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” said Cardinal Burke, who heads the Vatican’s highest court. “The person who’s living in an irregular union is living in an adulterous union and therefore cannot be admitted to the sacraments until that situation has been rectified.”
While he said the debate over Cardinal Kasper’s proposal “can only be a healthy thing as long as there’s an honest and deep exchange of views on the matter,” he said protracted discussion at the highest levels has bred confusion.
“This has gone on now for several months and I see that in the media there’s the expectation that there’s going to be some change in the church’s teaching,” Cardinal Burke said. “I hear from bishops and priests that many people are coming to them and insisting that they can now receive the sacraments because they interpret that somehow the church has already changed her teaching. And that isn’t healthy.”
The October 2014 synod is not supposed to reach definitive conclusions but prepare the agenda for a larger world synod a year later, which will make recommendations to the pope. Yet, Cardinal Burke voiced hopes that church leaders would conclude their debate on the Communion question during the first phase of the process.
“What I would hope would happen at (the 2014 synod) is that this issue be clarified and it be off the table,” he said.
Pope Francis is the “first teacher of the faith,” who is expected to author an apostolic exhortation based on the two synods, but he “wanted to call the presidents of conferences of bishops from around the world to hear their thinking, and if he hears from them that there is no point in further discussion of the matter and it should be taken off the table, that would be a wonderful thing,” the cardinal said.
Cardinal Burke said he could not estimate how many of the nearly 200 bishops attending the synod might be open to Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, though he said he saw support in Europe and resistance among bishops in Africa. But he said he could not envision the German cardinal’s recommendation prevailing.
“These are bishops, these are shepherds of the flock, who are Catholic. I can’t imagine them accepting this proposal,” he said. “I don’t know quite how I would be able to digest it.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)